In this passage he talks about God's wrath on mankind. You should have used the whole passage. Romans 1:18-32 and not just cherry pick a paragraph. Reading the whole thing gives the reader an understanding of what it means. Basically I think it means that man is and has a depraved mind and God is giving them what they want to do and behave like.

Oh... Im sorry. I forget about all the other folks God has suggested killing. You really want me to post that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aber61

Old testiment, that is the law and does no longer apply.

Yes, I know its the OT. Convenient for you and lucky for the homosexuals, isn't it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aber61

I am not worried about being persecuted. It does bother me but I am not going to let it get me down. I will stand up and defend my rights as I have that freedom to do so.

So you stand proud under the protections you have simply by being an American citizen, while condemning an entire segment of our population based on the tenets of your religion? Proudly standing tall and professing your opinion that other Americans should not share some of the same rights you enjoy.

You are not the only one that is covered under "pursuit of happiness."

Let me preface this by saying I respect you and Abers decision to live your lives based on the Bible. At no time have I nor would I ever suggest you two are idiots and there is no heaven. I would like to see that respect go the other way, though, on a general scale. The homosexuals are not telling the religious movement what to do, the religious movement should not be telling the homosexuals what to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L4CX

OK, let me give this a try. We're going on what I believe, So I'm goign to be clear that this is what I believe, and this is why I share, to an extent, what Aber is saying. You may not agree with it, but this is to try to give you guys and understand of where we come from.

I understand where you guys are coming from. I happen to disagree that you have the right or authority to push that opinion onto anyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L4CX

The first being, Adam and Eve. That picture you posted makes a pretty good point. However, it misses the mark a bit. Adam and Eve were brought together BEFORE SIN. That means, According to Christian Belief, that they were still perfect, no sin, no imperfections. That is the reason it is looked at as THE example of what a marriage should be.

Clearly it had to be Adam and Eve or there would be no human race. And of course it would be THE example... It was the only example. If you guys can modify the Bible and its teachings based on how the world changes, cant some of your definitions be modified as well? I can expound on this if you need.....

Oh... Im sorry. I forget about all the other folks God has suggested killing. You really want me to post that?

You can post anything you like to.
God is the boss, He made the rules so, He is God and you are not.
Take it up with Him!

Yes, I know its the OT. Convenient for you and lucky for the homosexuals, isn't it.

As I said, not me but what is written is that homosexuality is an abomination according to God.
Like I said take it up with Him. He made the rules, not me.

So you stand proud under the protections you have simply by being an American citizen, while condemning an entire segment of our population based on the tenets of your religion? Proudly standing tall and professing your opinion that other Americans should not share some of the same rights you enjoy.

You are not the only one that is covered under "pursuit of happiness."

Yes I am happy. Happy about who I am and what I stand for.
You could ask any gay person and they may say they are happy but I'm sure they struggle with an Idendity crisis on who they are and why they feel as they do. I feel sorry for them and thier struggle but I do not condon them in thier sin.
Have you ever talked to somebody that has walked away from the homosexual lifestyle?
Try to and you may come away with a different perspective on this subject.

Let me preface this by saying I respect you and Abers decision to live your lives based on the Bible. At no time have I nor would I ever suggest you two are idiots and there is no heaven. I would like to see that respect go the other way, though, on a general scale. The homosexuals are not telling the religious movement what to do, the religious movement should not be telling the homosexuals what to do.

I understand where you guys are coming from. I happen to disagree that you have the right or authority to push that opinion onto anyone else.

Clearly it had to be Adam and Eve or there would be no human race. And of course it would be THE example... It was the only example. If you guys can modify the Bible and its teachings based on how the world changes, cant some of your definitions be modified as well? I can expound on this if you need.....

We do change and God does not. If He changed His mind I would think that we would all be in serious trouble.
Heb. 13:8 Jesus Christ, is the same yesterday and today and forever.
i am glad that He is steady and constant and never changes. The end result is life or death. I choose life.
Besides its not about us, its about the one who paid the price, who gave His life so that we could have life and have it more abundently.

When are we as a society going to quit treating others as though they are second class citizens. Just because someone lives a lifestyle different from your own doesn't give you the right to discriminate against them. It's time we get past this nonsense and legalize gay marriage. I don't believe people actually take what they read in a book written by ideological men several millennia ago to be fact. Perhaps those who believe marriage should be for people like them should reflect on their own life. And focus on their own happiness. Then maybe they will stop trying to drag others down with them.

I have no problem with Homosexuals. I do not think any less of them. I know plenty of people that are gay and I have no issue with them. Some of them I even have a good relationship with. I just don't see the point in changing a Definition when it would be just as easy to make another term for ALL unions. BUT, nobody here seems to have a good answer to that and continue to say I'm bias because of my faith.

How is me wanting a definition to stay the same any different then them wanting to change the definition? We both have the rights and if they made another name it would be a win win. BUT, I'm bias becuase I'm a Jesus Freak who hates all people that don't share my faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by opie

Let me preface this by saying I respect you and Abers decision to live your lives based on the Bible. At no time have I nor would I ever suggest you two are idiots and there is no heaven. I would like to see that respect go the other way, though, on a general scale. The homosexuals are not telling the religious movement what to do, the religious movement should not be telling the homosexuals what to do.

I understand where you guys are coming from. I happen to disagree that you have the right or authority to push that opinion onto anyone else.

Are they not pushing their own opinion on what their definition of Marriage should be? Seriously? I'm all for them having the rights of Spousal Benefits. ABSOLUTELY OK WITH IT. I'm not ok with everybody saying it's ok for them to push thier definition of Marriage onto what it already is. ESPECIALLY when there is a clear, painfully obvious, way to make this work for both sides.

Quote:

Clearly it had to be Adam and Eve or there would be no human race. And of course it would be THE example... It was the only example. If you guys can modify the Bible and its teachings based on how the world changes, cant some of your definitions be modified as well? I can expound on this if you need.....

No actually. Not if it allows something that our faith considers sin. Romans ( or is Corinthians) talks about respecting our authorities as much as we can. The only Caveat to that is that if it supersedes God's Commandments we are to stick with God's Commandments. To change the Christian Definition of Marriage to allow homosexual marriage it would be going against God's commandment against Homosexuality.

How is me wanting a definition to stay the same any different then them wanting to change the definition? We both have the rights and if they made another name it would be a win win. BUT, I'm bias becuase I'm a Jesus Freak who hates all people that don't share my faith.

Here's the difference...your wanting to keep the definition of the word marriage the same, effects other people. Changing it to include others, has no impact on your life whatsoever. Do you see the difference?

Here's the difference...your wanting to keep the definition of the word marriage the same, effects other people. Changing it to include others, has no impact on your life whatsoever. Do you see the difference?

So that makes my definition invalid? Obviously, because of the many many many many threads we've had on this and the countless people that "Fight" this idea. It does have an effect on people. If it didn't do you really think it would be this big of a Deal? There are not Two magical Definitions, Religious and Legal; Marriage is Marriage, in the least, to those MANY MANY MANY people.

You're OPINION is that it shouldn't have an effect on anybody but it does. Just like my Opinion is that it should.

As far as effecting my life. It would because it would be taking something that I hold very sacred and mixing it with something that is, from my standpoint, a perversion of it. It doesn't mean I don't think they have the freedom to have spouses and the benefits though. I would also ask the same question to you:

If they didn't use marriage and used Civil Union, what effect would it have on thier lives that Besides, of course, allowing them to have the Bennies?

Then put me on ingnore your Highness. Geez, like I give a crap what you think of me. If you've been around these arguements any more than 30 seconds, you'd find the same old players twisting around biblical verses to push their agenda. I've tried to have an intellegent debate on this subject years ago but no intellegence was being used to argue the anti-gay marriage (as is the case today).

If you ever want a serious debat about a subject, I'll jump in and contribute. This thead can't be a serious debate because people in it think they are following the will of an invisable man who lives in the sky and they are using a book that is openly telling them to murder certain people (like the Koran). If I tried to use a Batman comic book to argue my point (another work of fiction with a make believe hero), I'd be laughed at.

What makes you think that Whiterhino is better than you? He is making a statment about you and your attitude towards others. You must be feeling convicted about your behaviour. Which is not becomeing of a grown man.

If you ever want a serious debat about a subject, I'll jump in and contribute. This thead can't be a serious debate because people in it think they are following the will of an invisable man who lives in the sky and they are using a book that is openly telling them to murder certain people (like the Koran). If I tried to use a Batman comic book to argue my point (another work of fiction with a make believe hero), I'd be laughed at.

As far as effecting my life. It would because it would be taking something that I hold very sacred and mixing it with something that is, from my standpoint, a perversion of it. It doesn't mean I don't think they have the freedom to have spouses and the benefits though. I would also ask the same question to you:

If they didn't use marriage and used Civil Union, what effect would it have on thier lives that Besides, of course, allowing them to have the Bennies?

Really? Say tomorrow Steve and Steve are able to go to a court house and get married in the eyes of the law (I realize they already can in a few states). Can you honestly say that your life will change? Give me a break. I bet you'd wake up, go to work, do whatever else you do and chances are, you wouldn't even know about. I hope you don't wonder why Christians get a bad rap for meddling in others' lives. You can say you don't agree with it and that's fine, there's a lot of crap in the world I don't agree with, but just because I don't agree with something, it's not my role to prohibit others from doing it when it isn't a part of my life.

As far as your question back to me, I really don't care what it's called as long as it's the same term for everyone. Although, I would argue that it's a bit ridiculous to coin a new term for what would be the exact same thing under the law. What if a man and woman aren't religious and don't get married at a church, temple, mosque, etc. They wouldn't be married? As long as people are treated equally in the eyes of the law (your religion can continue to discriminate, that's fine), I think people will be satisfied, but I still think it's an exercise in futility to coin a new term.

Really? Say tomorrow Steve and Steve are able to go to a court house and get married in the eyes of the law (I realize they already can in a few states). Can you honestly say that your life will change? Give me a break. I bet you'd wake up, go to work, do whatever else you do and chances are, you wouldn't even know about. I hope you don't wonder why Christians get a bad rap for meddling in others' lives. You can say you don't agree with it and that's fine, there's a lot of crap in the world I don't agree with, but just because I don't agree with something, it's not my role to prohibit others from doing it when it isn't a part of my life.

As far as your question back to me, I really don't care what it's called as long as it's the same term for everyone. Although, I would argue that it's a bit ridiculous to coin a new term for what would be the exact same thing under the law. What if a man and woman aren't religious and don't get married at a church, temple, mosque, etc. They wouldn't be married? As long as people are treated equally in the eyes of the law (your religion can continue to discriminate, that's fine), I think people will be satisfied, but I still think it's an exercise in futility to coin a new term.

I didn't ask how it would effect your life, I asked what effect it would have on them?

Secondly, I realize that if one gay couple got married, it wouldn't effect my life, but changing a definition of something that is sacred to thousands of Americans would. And I think an exercise in Futility would be just fine for those of us that feel the definition should stay as it is.

Is it Discrimination to not allow Illegal Immigrants into our country? You know, because they don't meet a certain criteria to be legal residents of our country. Just like ANYBODY with sin is not able to be in the presence of God. Which means they can't go to heaven. That God clearly stating that homosexuallity, among MANY MANY MANY other things, is a sin. We can't change The Creator of the Universes rules. We can only play by them. So if you want to continue to think we're just being intolerant, go ahead. But if you really want to realize what Christians believe and realize we don't have any control of what a sin is/Isn't according to our holy text, then fine.

I would love to allow everybody to be in the presence of God and have a relationship with him. It's an amazing thing and has brought great purpose to my life. Why do you think for a minute we would want to exclude ANYBODY from that? Sure, we have bad apples, but so does every group of people.

I could never have faith in anything that tells me someone is wrong for doing what makes them happy when it doesn't bring harm to anyone. That's why I choose logic over religion.

Not trying to offend or sound Arrogant but that sounds alot like what a Teenager says to their parents when they won't let them do something they want to do. I mean, You're free to believe what ever you want but, if there is a God, who are we to question what he says is wrong or right?

Personally, I have a relationship with God and choose to seek his advice in everything I do in my life. I know he knows best because he created us and knows what we should/shouldn't be doing.

I have no problem with Homosexuals. I do not think any less of them. I know plenty of people that are gay and I have no issue with them. Some of them I even have a good relationship with. I just don't see the point in changing a Definition when it would be just as easy to make another term for ALL unions. BUT, nobody here seems to have a good answer to that and continue to say I'm bias because of my faith.

How is me wanting a definition to stay the same any different then them wanting to change the definition? We both have the rights and if they made another name it would be a win win. BUT, I'm bias becuase I'm a Jesus Freak who hates all people that don't share my faith.

And how is changing a definition of marriage any different now then what it has been in the past. The definition has evolved many times over the millennia and to say this is it, this is the true meaning is ridiculous. The word marry is used to describe the joining, or blending of many things in modern english.

The fact is this isn't easily solved with a name change. The religious right has made it a mission to shoot down same sex marriage by any name. They have done their best to add non recognition of civil union language to nearly every voter approved law banning same sex marriage.

I don't recall saying you hate anyone. Only that so many religious people are hung up on some thing that won't change a single thing in their own life.

My wife and I are both agnostic, and getting married had nothing to do with god. Our marriage was a promise from to the other. In fact all you need is a marriage licence and a justice of the peace.

Please, for the sake of keeping the flow of the conversation from being interrupted... Separate your replies to a post from the quote of the post you are replying to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aber61

You can post anything you like to.
God is the boss, He made the rules so, He is God and you are not.
Take it up with Him!

You may be satisfied that he is your boss, and that's fine. I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but not everyone subscribes to your line of thinking. Our country got its start because of the mindset you are displaying here.

A couple paragraphs from our founding documents I think you need to read.... I will highlight the parts I think are important in relation to the conversation you and I are having.... Feel free to discuss.

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Please tell me what the bolded sections mean to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aber61

As I said, not me but what is written is that homosexuality is an abomination according to God.
Like I said take it up with Him. He made the rules, not me.

Your God or my God? My God doesn't care and since our Government can not have a state sponsored religion, Ill thank you to tell your God to stay out of my life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aber61

Yes I am happy. Happy about who I am and what I stand for.

And you should be. Otherwise you would be living a lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aber61

You could ask any gay person and they may say they are happy but I'm sure they struggle with an Idendity crisis on who they are and why they feel as they do. I feel sorry for them and thier struggle but I do not condon them in thier sin.

How does any of this have anything to do with you?

They are not asking for your approval.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aber61

Have you ever talked to somebody that has walked away from the homosexual lifestyle?
Try to and you may come away with a different perspective on this subject.

Again, irrelevant. We do not live in a country that is supposed to have a system where we are saved from what others may deem mistakes.

Not trying to offend or sound Arrogant but that sounds alot like what a Teenager says to their parents when they won't let them do something they want to do. I mean, You're free to believe what ever you want but, if there is a God, who are we to question what he says is wrong or right?

Personally, I have a relationship with God and choose to seek his advice in everything I do in my life. I know he knows best because he created us and knows what we should/shouldn't be doing.

And that sounds like what many have said as they killed hundreds of thousands of inocents over the last 2 thousand years in the name of god. But hey who were they to question the will of god. It's not questioning god to question text written by people in a given time when these beliefs were on the rise.

I could never have faith in anything that tells me someone is wrong for doing what makes them happy when it doesn't bring harm to anyone. That's why I choose logic over religion.

Pedophiles are happy having sex with children, it harms plenty of people and is not right.
But in their eyes its a good thing. They think they are doing nothing wrong.
So thier is nothing wrong with having boundries.
By changing the definition of marriage from 1 man and 1 woman to homosexual marriage where does it stop people from wanting to marry children, animals, objects, poligomy?
How logical is that?
Open the flood gates and have a free for all.
If its good for gay people to marry it should be good for others also... right?

Are they not pushing their own opinion on what their definition of Marriage should be? Seriously?

Yes, because of the pushback from the religious fundamentalists that wish to have marriage be defined as one man and one woman. Seems it is already defined for the masses, but you want to shore that up to be only 1 man and 1 woman. Not sure its the homosexuals that want to change it. Thats the problem when we try to set up a law of morality based on religion in a country that can not have a state sponsored religion. Our framework is set up to allow ALL to enjoy the freedom to do as they wish. You like to use your Bible to define marriage, I like to use Merriam's...

Quote:

mar·riage
noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
See marriage defined for English-language learners »
See marriage defined for kids »

Quote:

Originally Posted by L4CX

I'm all for them having the rights of Spousal Benefits. ABSOLUTELY OK WITH IT. I'm not ok with everybody saying it's ok for them to push thier definition of Marriage onto what it already is. ESPECIALLY when there is a clear, painfully obvious, way to make this work for both sides.

But you are trying to push yours onto them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L4CX

No actually. Not if it allows something that our faith considers sin. Romans ( or is Corinthians) talks about respecting our authorities as much as we can. The only Caveat to that is that if it supersedes God's Commandments we are to stick with God's Commandments. To change the Christian Definition of Marriage to allow homosexual marriage it would be going against God's commandment against Homosexuality.

But not everyone agrees that your God is right.

And for the state to recognize just the Christian definition of marriage, would the Government not then be sponsoring a religion?

No disrespect intended, and I mean that... But you Christians are not the only ones here.

Pedophiles are happy having sex with children, it harms plenty of people and is not right.
But in their eyes its a good thing. They think they are doing nothing wrong.
So thier is nothing wrong with having boundries.
By changing the definition of marriage from 1 man and 1 woman to homosexual marriage where does it stop people from wanting to marry children, animals, objects, poligomy?
How logical is that?
Open the flood gates and have a free for all.
If its good for gay people to marry it should be good for others also... right?

I guess you chose to ignore where I qualified it by saying as long as it doesn't harm others. Clearly pedophiles harm others. That's the boundary right there and that IS logical.